Declaring war
Poor old Vince. He could have said he was declaring war on 'terror', or 'drugs', or 'benefit cheats', and he may well have been praised to the rafters, despite the inherent ridiculousness of those wars and their unwinnable nature. But that would have been all right. Unwinnable wars against abstract fears concocted by the panicmongers in the press are fine; an unwinnable war against the panicmongers in the press are shocking, disgraceful and completely out of hand.
There has been an idea mooted in the past few hours that ministers should be impartial, somehow objective, possibly looking at stuff in a completely neutral way. It's a lovely idea, but I think there's a little problem with it: these people spend their entire lives as political beings, as partial rather than impartial, as partisan proponents of a particular way of thinking; it's more than a bit hopeful, to say the least, to imagine that they will suddenly discover a calm objectivity from somewhere as soon as they're elected to the power that they've craved and sought throughout their entire careers.
No, maybe it's not that, either. Maybe it's just that Cable has reacted as a human being rather than an automaton. Maybe it's that he didn't play the game properly. You're meant to maintain the artifice of being this impartial, objective creature when you're a minister, despite your inherent prejudices and allegiances; what Cable did wrong was to drop the mask for a minute. That was mistake - not in what he said, or his sentiments, or anything like that, but in the moment of not keeping up that level of deception towards the general public. Instead of coming out with a load of bluster to pretend he was impartial when in reality everyone knew he wasn't, he just came out and said what he really thought. And that is seen as dreadfully wrong.
Then again, though Jeremy Hunt isn't spectacularly impartial. And David Cameron can say it's 'delicious' that the BBC are facing up to cutbacks, for example. So what's the difference? They are allowed to speak out in public about their prejudices, and that's perfectly fine. But Cable does it in private to someone he's never met before, and all of a sudden he's made a right old shocker. It doesn't seem entirely consistent, but there it is. Back Murdoch publicly, and you can still be impartial; attack Murdoch privately, and you can't be impartial.
It's the Lib Dems who are under scrutiny, though, as that is where it is imagined the fault-lines of the Coalition will present themselves. Perhaps they are more vulnerable to a bit of secret recording than the Tories, by dint of being less savvy about these things, or maybe they're more prone simply because they're more easily approached. I daresay you could try a few fishing expeditions with Tories and you might find them saying things in private they'd rather not be saying in public. But no-one did. The Telegraph targeted the Lib Dems.
Cable is doomed, of course. He'll blunder around on the dancefloor on Christmas Day and make a fool of himself, and gradually his credibility will be chipped away at. It will be easy enough to do. But where are Labour in all this? Are they going to take a stand against the erosion of media plurality, or will they just meekly hide in the shadows because they fear Murdoch and his influence? Or will they just try to take advantage of Coalition confusion to hope that Lib Dems will jump ship in their direction? If so, the only person who will have taken a stand against Murdoch will have been Vince Cable, and he will soon be gone, and that will be that.
No related posts.
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
- The power of publicity
- Cheerio, cheerio, cheerio…
- Children died
- The letters you never get around to sending
- Applying again
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- emmaspen on Children died
- emma on The letters you never get around to sending
- Iain on Applying again
- Roger on The letters you never get around to sending
- Dave Hodgkinson on The letters you never get around to sending
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.
December 22nd, 2010 - 13:12
To be fair, Vince Cable has lost all dignity and credibility already. I remember before the election when he was a rational politician who I actually really liked.
December 22nd, 2010 - 14:45
well said. i am glad he spoke the truth. it is the dissembling and lying and supporting of media hacks that is wrong in government.
December 22nd, 2010 - 15:08
You’re overcomplicating things. Cable was wrong to say what he did because he was expected to make a judicious decision based on the findings of a report he had not yet seen. Some journalist made the point that Cable’s comments are the equivalent of a judge declaring a person guilty weeks before the trial begins.
For passionate politicians true impartiality may very well be impossible (even undesirable). But if you adopt the pretense of providing a fair hearing based on an independent report and are caught out, you are clearly in the wrong.
Cable’s comments were not only wrong, they were also stupid. By many accounts (including the view of the European Commission) there are no strong grounds to prevent the deal – notwithstanding vague appeals to media plurality. Either Cable had already made up his mind that he was definitely going to block the deal, based on nothing more than his own under-informed prejudice, or he might never have prevented it from happening anyway. If the latter, his bluster was nothing more than foolish boasting.
With regards to trying to catch the Tories out… The Telegraph doesn’t have a monopoly on this kind of journalism; there’s two left-of-centre newspapers which could’ve easily tried similar tactics on Tory cabinet ministers. But they didn’t. Maybe because they consider it ‘unethical’. Regardless, you’ve provided a good justification for targeting the Lib Dems in the 1st line of the 5th para, which surely diminishes any arguments of unfairness. And are you really surprised the Torygraph isn’t going after Conservatives?
I find it a bit odd that you don’t expect our elected representatives to be impartial or make their decisions based on reason and evidence (unless such decisions apply to issues like drugs, immigration or the Iraq war, of course), yet you do seem to expect that of journalists – many of whom have also spent their entire lives as political beings.
Or maybe you don’t expect, or hope, for impartiality in the media and, over this past year, I’ve simply misunderstood the point of your blog. In which case, I apologise.
December 22nd, 2010 - 15:16
What?
December 22nd, 2010 - 20:56
I think he just attempted a long-winded version of this.
December 22nd, 2010 - 17:12
Murdoch is a politician, if the term has any meaning. The fact that nobody elected him – that he’s not even a British citizen – only makes his involvement in our political life all the more outrageous. So, Vince Cable shows bias against another politician, and it’s an outrage. What next? Somebody has to resign for saying the Pope’s a bastard who’s killing Africans by the million?
December 22nd, 2010 - 20:54
Yes , Simon Davies, let’s not have vague appeals to media plurality, lets have laws that prevent individuals or companies owning more than 5% of a media market and being restricted in the number of markets they operate in. A little less vague, but an important way of making sure that very rich people don’t hog the loudhailer.
Whilst we are on the subject of Newscorp, since they tell politicians who should be taxed and what should be done wih it – how much tax do they pay in this country? they seem a little reticent about telling – or maybe their cash travels through so many countries it’s hard to spot it long enough to tax it. These people should be ashamed of themselves.
December 23rd, 2010 - 10:44
I keep reading this situation as “Britain shocked as Minister threatens to actually do his fucking job properly”…
Also: there’s a reason we call it The Torygraph.
December 31st, 2010 - 09:36
All this misses the important point :-
Vince Cable was in a quasi-judicial role (that is he is legally bound to act impartially and make the decision on the evidence presented).
If he had referred the case to the Competition Competition then this would have ended up in the courts under judicial review, and News International would undoubtedly have won.
Of course it is ridiculous to beleive that ministers don’t have views, they are politicians after all. There is also a case that decisions like this should not be made by politicians in the first place (they have their place in setting the policies in the first place of course). However, the position is that this would rapidly become a matter for the courts, and that is clearly untenable.